Pages:
Author

Topic: What's so special about the NAP? - page 2. (Read 20458 times)

full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 02:58:19 PM
Quote
Which brings us to an interesting point. Which system do you propose as better than both the current mess and market anarchy?

The general answer is: The American System of Political Economy.

Can you briefly summarize its tenets? for example, Market anarchy holds that there is no need for a regional monopoly on any service, and the market can provide them all, better and cheaper than forcing people to pay a single organization.

Well, I would describe it as follows in a single sentence:

"The American System seeks the total mobilization of the productive and technological forces of the Nation for the betterment, welfare, progress and prosperity of the people of the United States and the world."

That says absolutely nothing, but the rest of your post adequately describes what you feel is the proper way to run trade and commerce... What about the internal policies?

Actually, that says just about everything.  This is the difference between having a procedural ideology and making your decisions based on principle.  Do you think it would be easier to perfectly define a perfect, fixed, unmoving utopia and then try to bridge that gap between (A) where we are, and (Z) where that utopia supposedly lies with a bunch of in-between steps?

That's the point, we have no idea what the future will look like in the typical Libertarian-utopia model, and trying to rigorously define morality in terms of procedure will always fail because the world is always changing.

If one looks at every possible policy through a principled-lens, that I have illustrated above, then one sees what is 'good' and what is harmful to the population.

But what else could you infer to my 'trade and commerce' polices other than what I said?  How do you know anything else about what my polices would be if that's the only litmus test I perform to determine if a policy is good or bad?  That's a rather bold leap for you to take.

Regarding internal policies I'm for, and I'm putting this simply for the sake of brevity:

*  Collecting the Corporate Income Tax
*  Taxing Wall St.'s financial transactions (between 0.15% and 0.5%)
*  Nationalize the Federal Reserve
*  Creating a new TVA for projects of national interest
*  Funding nuclear research and overhauling the Energy Department (funding Fusion and building LFTR in the next 5 years)
*  Building a national grid of state-of-the-art mag-lev trains
*  Close the tax-havens here and abroad and collaborate with other nations in a new Bretton Woods style system of fixed exchanges
*  Collaborate with China and Russia on building a moon base with the idea to land a man on Mars
*  Subsidize college education either by 0% loans and/or allotments of credits or vouchers to get everyone at least a bachelors degree or equivalent of education
*  Reform bankruptcy law to permit more entrepreneurship and small business innovation
*  Tilt the favor of tax law and code in favor of small business over mega-corporations (basically the reverse of what it is now)
*  Begin selling off the international imperial bases abroad in an organized fashion (not a fire sale)
*  Regulate commodities markets with severe position limits (5% - 10% tops)
*  Create a government owned National Oil Company that has sole permission to drill oil on national lands, that oil will smash the Oil cartels control on oil prices and the revenue will go to the public, lowering the need for other taxes
*  Cut income taxes (for the lower and middle classes) in half or more with these increased revenues from those that presently don't pay taxes (Wall St., the Fortune 500)
*  Implement a 52 week minimum for paid-maternity leave and at least half that for fathers
*  Regulate mergers, acquisitions, leveraged buyouts and other worthless, debt increasing, pirate Capitalist style shenanigans that Mitt Romney is known for
*  Aim at (after the economic crisis has been defeated by the indication of Full Employment) changing the maximum workweek to 36 hours and a minimum 3 week vacation as part of labor law

This is not all inclusive, and I'm prepared to argue any of these polices in depth.
sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 250
July 09, 2012, 02:39:00 PM
 Heck, I used to be [a libertarian], so I know its allure first hand.
Oh?  Tell us more.  What changed your mind?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 09, 2012, 02:30:42 PM
Quote
Which brings us to an interesting point. Which system do you propose as better than both the current mess and market anarchy?

The general answer is: The American System of Political Economy.

Can you briefly summarize its tenets? for example, Market anarchy holds that there is no need for a regional monopoly on any service, and the market can provide them all, better and cheaper than forcing people to pay a single organization.

Well, I would describe it as follows in a single sentence:

"The American System seeks the total mobilization of the productive and technological forces of the Nation for the betterment, welfare, progress and prosperity of the people of the United States and the world."

That says absolutely nothing, but the rest of your post adequately describes what you feel is the proper way to run trade and commerce... What about the internal policies?
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 02:29:38 PM
What is wrong with Majority Rule with Rights of Individuals Constitutionally Protected?  This is the system of the American Revolution and it's the better system than the options between the above two that you seem to pretend are the only options.

What, you mean aside from the fact that the two concepts are antithetical?

You cannot have majority rule, and still protect the rights of the individual. Majority rule means that the minority is oppressed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

What, you think you don't have these rights in spite of the majority?  It isn't something is a set-and-forget system, this system requires your participation - and even with the amazing lack of participation with so much of our population (being slaves to politically concocted ideologies) we still have reasonable protection of these rights.  

Imagine how defended they would be, and how many other rights could be established (Internet Free Speech, could be a constitutional amendment, for example) if we had a population that fought for them.

Here is the thing that you can't seem to understand: that with greater union and combination of action the MORE freedom we all have, not less.  The more advanced our civilization is, the more it protects the rights of individuals and the more we protect these rights the more our civilization advances.

sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 250
July 09, 2012, 02:27:07 PM

Quote
in order to eliminate racism, all racist people must suddenly stop acting racist
Well, they can act racist all they want, so long as those acts are limited to non-aggressive ones.

Quote
any person can take violent action to eliminate (or perhaps even prevent?) any perceived violation of NAP, even if they themselves are not the victim?
Yes, But be careful with "prevention"... It's easy to get carried away, as your "OMG he has a AR, Keeeel heeeem!" response shows....

Quote
In case the driver has no insurance, which insurance company pays?
The victim's, who has a vested interest in discovering who harmed their client.

Quote
Are you suggesting that people will need to travel armed like that under NAP?
Need to? No. But there's nothing stopping them. As long as they don't point the gun at you, they're not a threat. If you perceive one anyway, you can act on it... be be aware that might end up making you the aggressor...

As to the rest of your points, Might I suggest UPB as a valid secular, rational, damn near mathematical, proof of the NAP. I'm working on getting it into epub format, and at that point, it will show up in the "book club" thread. In the meantime, the full text is at that link.
Let me try to summarize.

The elimination of racism requires only that racists cease to engage in racist behavior. Tell me, what about paying redheads less than brownheads for the same work? Assume that the redheads have signed a contract. Racism such as this has led to all sorts of social problems all over the world. Will NAP somehow prevent that?

Also, any uninvolved person or entity may act violently in order to prevent or eliminate any violations of the NAP, even where he himself is neither the perpetrator nor the victim, nor even related or known to the victim.  He must, however, hope that the perpetrator's defense agency will view his acts as honorable and choose to uphold the NAP and publicly act against the interests of its client.

You do not refute my claim that it would be cheaper for all drivers to collectively not buy insurance. Therefore, it is now economically rational for a society to not have insurance, both at the group and individual levels. Even worse, you'll also have to pay an additional premium for those cases in which you are the victim of an unsolved hit-n-run.

Now, any individual is entitled to defend themselves against perceived threats; but must consider the possibility that no threat was intended and that he himself is the initial agressor and so be judged a NAP violator despite his best pro-NAP intentions.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that you're probably from the U.S.A. where people have been conditioned to think they have a God-given right to bear any arbitrary arms.  Can you see that your opinion (that people can carry AARs) is geographically influenced?  For example, I come from a country where even the police do not carry firearms.

Other crucial questions that you missed were:
1. Does the elimination of slavery then rely on the kindness of strangers?
2. Is [shady repair man] obliged to carry out checks before [repairing cars] or is he free to conduct his business as he wishes? Are the victims of hit-n-runs entitled to engage in violence against him on the possibility that one of his clients is a hit-n-runner?
3. A bonus question: were you here for the raindrop-triggered-nuclear-weapons discussion?

I'm trying to find the time to read UPB; but I think I can already tell when my opinion will differ from the author's - I'm pretty sure that soon he will imply that, once regulations and majority-endorsed government violence is removed, people will suddenly, magically, start being nice to one another.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 02:23:24 PM
Quote
The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

We've been through this; Paris Hilton has the right to a gazillion dollars and the right to vote.  You have no rational basis to say that one right is "valid" and another is not.  

Yes, we have. I don't give a flying shit how much money Paris Hilton has. Nothing gives her the right to say what I can or cannot do with mine. I do not try to tell her what to do with hers.

Are you aware that what the rich do with their money affects what you can do with yours?  Also are you aware that once a group of people start unduly gaining money in the system they typically turn that undue money into undue power by buying political influence?  And if you are aware of that, how does the solution become "ok, we due away with government" rather than "ok, we due something to curb the appetites and corrupting potential influence of our elites"?

No political system, no way for anyone to get undue political influence.

*sigh*

That's clearly the easy answer.  That requires fewer words and basically no thoughts.  It is much harder to fix something than to simply throw it in the garbage, but since this system is inclusive of modern civilization I don't know how or why you think that this is something that can be discarded, or would be preferable if it could be discarded.

As much as I hate going this direction, this is really a psychological issue at this point; that is, if I knew thee personally I'm fairly sure I would be able to categorize your mental state and ascertain why it is that you find this synthetic ideology so appealing.  I know a many Libertarians and the back stories are all very similar.  Heck, I used to be one, so I know its allure first hand.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 02:16:07 PM
Quote
Which brings us to an interesting point. Which system do you propose as better than both the current mess and market anarchy?

The general answer is: The American System of Political Economy.

Can you briefly summarize its tenets? for example, Market anarchy holds that there is no need for a regional monopoly on any service, and the market can provide them all, better and cheaper than forcing people to pay a single organization.

Well, I would describe it as follows in a single sentence:

"The American System seeks the total mobilization of the productive and technological forces of the Nation for the betterment, welfare, progress and prosperity of the people of the United States and the world."

That isn't actually printed anywhere, that is what I see this system to reflect.  The difference is that it isn't fixated on procedural means of accomplishing this.  That is, that the means of getting to this goal can and have changed.  This is the reason I don't consider this system ideological, because there is no rigorous method, in terms of action to accomplish this and every policy has to be analyzed in view of it moving this goal forward or not - given the present conditions.  Simply put, the goal is not any specific thing in the physical reality we inhabit, per se, it is a dedication to that principle that I illustrated in that single sentence quoted above.

For example, presently I'm in favor of repealing NAFTA and implementing a protective import tariff.  The goal of this tariff would be to protect American labor against the foreign slave-sweat shops by increasing the cost of goods bought by slaves or foreign monopolies.  This would foster domestic production and rising standards of living in this country.  Abroad it would direct that wage-slave labor into something more net productive and beneficial to the people of that nation.

Domestically, rising standards of living would greatly reduce crime, cultural pessimism, degeneracy, and other social ills.

These import tariffs would need to be adjusted in order to changing world conditions.  Sometimes they would need to be increased, sometimes lowered, sometimes countries would need to be added or removed from various "tiers" with regard to their standard of living.  So that the American worker would only be competing on a level playing field and not with factory-slave 12 year olds that are worked 18 hours a day, basically worked to death.

There are many more policies (obviously) but that is always the question that should be posed.  Does this policy move us in alignment with that principle or does it not?  That is, or should be, the only litmus test for what constitutes good governance.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 01:59:10 PM
I have read his conclusions and have to say he doesn't' seem to see that states have evolved in the free market of global competition for the right to govern.  That makes pretty well everything he says bogus doesn't it?

Or....

Your contention that they did is.

He goes down to first principles, and assumes he is wrong. Can you say the same?

Of course not. Its a matter of historical record that states greedily compete for the right to govern.  Free areas get occupied.  Weak states get conquered.  Its a Darwinian struggle and the states we have today are ones that have proved very competitive.  The older a state, the more likely it is that they have found a reliable system of government.

We don't need to theorise this.

But that doesn't specify where states come from, only how they got better over time. The nicest mafia is still a mafia.

You'll also notice that they ALL seem to be kinda... I donno... falling apart right at the moment?

Falling apart?  No.

Being eroded, corrupted and rotted by Imperialist forces?  Yes.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 09, 2012, 01:57:32 PM
What is wrong with Majority Rule with Rights of Individuals Constitutionally Protected?  This is the system of the American Revolution and it's the better system than the options between the above two that you seem to pretend are the only options.

What, you mean aside from the fact that the two concepts are antithetical?

You cannot have majority rule, and still protect the rights of the individual. Majority rule means that the minority is oppressed.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 01:56:42 PM
That logic has not been refuted or Friedman would have recanted.  If he has recanted, link to it and I'll see what changed his mind.  Otherwise you are only repeating the arguments he refuted.

1) Friedman is not the be all and end-all of Libertarian thought. I felt he had a particularly cogent description of market law, and since that is what we were discussing at the time, That book came first. Perhaps I should have specified which chapters to read.

2) if you would like a completely rational, secular explanation of my arguments, I refer you to Universally Preferable Behaviour, by Stephan Molyneux (whole book, right there on the webpage. Enjoy!)

Sorry, I just barfed a little bit in the back of my throat at the sight of the name "Steven Molyneux".
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 01:53:24 PM
Is that your opinion?  Or is that somehow, like Moonshadow thought, a non-arbitrary definition?  Just to be clear: I disagree, so what you say can only be your opinion. I genuinely would be scared shitless if I saw some random stranger walking down the road carrying an A.A.R.  I would *very definitely* consider it a direct threat to my safety, and would *very definitely* hit him very hard over the head with an iron bar if I thought I could do so safely.  I would then disarm him, and confiscate or destroy the weapons.  How exactly is this not consistent with the NAP, given that I genuinely perceive a threat to my safety?
It doesn't really matter what you actually did perceive because only reasonable perceptions justify the pre-emptive use of force. Whether your perception of a threat is reasonable or not would depend on the full context. But if it's not objectively reasonable, it doesn't matter that you actually felt threatened. Someone might actually feel threatened around tall men on dark streets, but that doesn't justify using force against them.

What if they are waving the gun around?

Then what?

What if they are shooting rounds into the air or into the ground?

Then what?

What if they are pointing the gun at people as a 'joke'?

Then what?

At what point does me carrying around a bazooka and driving my APC seem like a threat to you and your families life?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 09, 2012, 01:52:23 PM
Quote
The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

We've been through this; Paris Hilton has the right to a gazillion dollars and the right to vote.  You have no rational basis to say that one right is "valid" and another is not.  

Yes, we have. I don't give a flying shit how much money Paris Hilton has. Nothing gives her the right to say what I can or cannot do with mine. I do not try to tell her what to do with hers.

Are you aware that what the rich do with their money affects what you can do with yours?  Also are you aware that once a group of people start unduly gaining money in the system they typically turn that undue money into undue power by buying political influence?  And if you are aware of that, how does the solution become "ok, we due away with government" rather than "ok, we due something to curb the appetites and corrupting potential influence of our elites"?

No political system, no way for anyone to get undue political influence.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 01:51:30 PM
Also, consider that the victims will probably be members of a protection agency, which will have it's reputation staked on resolving the issue in a responsible manner; preventing activity X or seeking arbitration.

Oh yeah... derp. Forgot about that. Not to mention the insurance agency, who has to pay the death benefit to somebody...

How could a system which permits all manner, type and variety of financial fraud possibly provide the underpinning support for an insurance company to exist?  Who, in this system, protects against insurance fraud?  Setting up a fake bank or insurance company would surely be (and is) one of the most profitable frauds that exists.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 01:48:08 PM
Yup.  The normal stuff Joe Sixpack does.  Working, taxes deducted from his salary, kids going to the local school and so on.  Calling himself an "agorist" doesn't mean much.

It means he does not have the taxes deducted from his salary, or avoids work where they take taxes out automatically, does not, if he can avoid it, send his children to the local school, and otherwise lives and works counter-economically.

Well you are drifting off into an alternate reality where factory payrolls don't deduct taxes and I am drifting off to the pub. The NAP seems a lot less sinister today since it means you respect other people's existing rights. 

Remember those forms you filled out when you got hired at the factory, requiring you to declare your tax debt? All you have to do is tell them you don't have any, and they won't take out the taxes. It's surprisingly easy.

It's surprising easy that they won't take out those taxes because you won't be hired and won't be employed working there if trying to avoid paying taxes.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 01:41:37 PM
That's a perfectly valid opinion.  If I say my opinion is that "all property is theft" does that make it OK to take her money?  If not, why are your opinions special?

If your opinion is that all property is theft, you are perfectly welcome to divest yourself of all your property. Your opinions can affect you all you want. It's when you start trying to force your opinions on others that it becomes problematic. If you decide to force "all property is theft" on her, you are violating her rights, in the same way that when she votes to tell me what I can or cannot do with my money or body, she is violating mine.

Exactly! You are free not to vote yourself.  But you are not free to tell me what to do with my vote.  You certainly don't have any right to take away someone's voting rights any more than you can take away their property rights.

Vote all you want. For your leaders and your laws. The beauty of the free market system is that when you vote in it, you get exactly what you vote for. If you rely on democracy, I may be in the majority, and disagree with you, and then I have voted for your laws and leaders, and your vote has been ignored.

Why is this dichotomy between pure Tyrannical-Democracy and Libertarian-Anarchist-Utopia?

What is wrong with Majority Rule with Rights of Individuals Constitutionally Protected?  This is the system of the American Revolution and it's the better system than the options between the above two that you seem to pretend are the only options.

full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 01:36:27 PM
Quote
The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

We've been through this; Paris Hilton has the right to a gazillion dollars and the right to vote.  You have no rational basis to say that one right is "valid" and another is not.  

Yes, we have. I don't give a flying shit how much money Paris Hilton has. Nothing gives her the right to say what I can or cannot do with mine. I do not try to tell her what to do with hers.

Are you aware that what the rich do with their money affects what you can do with yours?  Also are you aware that once a group of people start unduly gaining money in the system they typically turn that undue money into undue power by buying political influence?  And if you are aware of that, how does the solution become "ok, we due away with government" rather than "ok, we due something to curb the appetites and corrupting potential influence of our elites"?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 09, 2012, 01:27:57 PM
Quote
Which brings us to an interesting point. Which system do you propose as better than both the current mess and market anarchy?

The general answer is: The American System of Political Economy.

Can you briefly summarize its tenets? for example, Market anarchy holds that there is no need for a regional monopoly on any service, and the market can provide them all, better and cheaper than forcing people to pay a single organization.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
July 09, 2012, 11:39:48 AM
If you are proposing Democracy, as such, count me out.  Democracy is like I said before and like Hamilton warned us: it is the masses being made to slit their own throats by use of ideology and the molding of the public mind by those in power establishment (the Oligarchy).  I'd like to try and dampen that process, it is already rapidly destroying our society, evidenced by the various ideological lemmings that I'm surrounded by (Marxists, Communists, Leftists, Libertarians, Anarchists, etc).

Which brings us to an interesting point. Which system do you propose as better than both the current mess and market anarchy?

The general answer is: The American System of Political Economy.

The more specific answer is a bunch of policies and possible Constitutional amendments.  I'm ready to answer either one based on how much you'd like to have this conversation orbit around policy or theory.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 08, 2012, 10:16:44 PM
(trimmed for brevity's sake)

Ahhhhhhhhh I get it. I think you are suggesting that, in order to eliminate racism, all racist people must suddenly stop acting racist. Now I understand why I never got it until now.

But now, are you suggesting that any person can take violent action to eliminate (or perhaps even prevent?) any perceived violation of NAP, even if they themselves are not the victim?

In case the driver has no insurance, which insurance company pays?

Are you suggesting that people will need to travel armed like that under NAP? 

Well, they can act racist all they want, so long as those acts are limited to non-aggressive ones.

Yes, But be careful with "prevention"... It's easy to get carried away, as your "OMG he has a AR, Keeeel heeeem!" response shows....

The victim's, who has a vested interest in discovering who harmed their client.

Need to? No. But there's nothing stopping them. As long as they don't point the gun at you, they're not a threat. If you perceive one anyway, you can act on it... be be aware that might end up making you the aggressor...

As to the rest of your points, Might I suggest UPB as a valid secular, rational, damn near mathematical, proof of the NAP. I'm working on getting it into epub format, and at that point, it will show up in the "book club" thread. In the meantime, the full text is at that link.
sr. member
Activity: 440
Merit: 250
July 08, 2012, 09:57:21 PM
I'm talking about "true libertarianism" in which even the NAP is rescinded. You are truly free to do whatever you want. Rescinding laws until you're left with only the NAP is arbitrary. Give me a good logical argument why libertarians insist on maintaining a NAP, and yet insist on rescinding lots of other laws.  Or, alternatively, why libertarians insist on creating the NAP, yet refuse to create other laws.
You seem to be confusing laws with a principle
Sorry, I've been offline for a while. This is a good post, different from the pro- and anti-NAP flame war currently going on.  Yes, cryptoanarcist, perhaps I did.  But then, if NAP is merely a principle, what is its basis?  Is it a principle of morality?  Of utility? Or maybe religious? An economic principle perhaps?  But if it's any of these, then it is necessarily subjective, and hence it is not universal (in the sense not all humans will consider it obviously useful/good/ideal). As such, it cannot possibly form the basis of a society composed of members with different or competing goals, morals, religions, racial features,..... and so on.

I give up. I too am guilty of off-topic posting. I would point out just that there has been no clear reason given, for what is so special about the NAP.  It seems to be based on vague feelings, beliefs, and opinions on "Natural Law" and what constitutes "right" and "wrong" behavior.
Pages:
Jump to: